SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “task and motion planning”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

117 records · Page 7

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Assessments of Physiology and Cognition in Hybrid-Reality Environments (APACHE)

NASA is planning to return to the Moon in the mid-2020s as a stepping stone to Mars missions in the 2030s. Spacewalks, or extravehicular activities (EVAs), performed on the Moon and Mars will differ in a variety of ways from those that have been performed in decades past. NASA has identified multiple risks to human health and performance associated with a crewed mission to Mars, especially those associated with exploration EVAs which are expected to be a primary mission activity. Crew may be expected to conduct up to 24 hours of EVA per person per week, where the likelihood of injury and/or mental mistakes are increased compared to ground-based training or current microgravity EVAs and the consequences of which can be catastrophic. Current test environments for exploration EVA research and technology development are large, costly facilities that are limited in their availability or capabilities. Spacesuit testing in a reduced gravity environment such as NASA’s Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, while a good representation of the crew’s physical workload during exploration EVAs, typically has small datasets and is difficult to integrate physiological sensors or other types of crew performance measures. Meanwhile, scientific field-based testing such as NASA’s Desert Research and Technology Studies offers an operationally relevant environment for exploration EVAs, particularly for cognitive workload, but is also limited by small datasets, lack of a pressurized spacesuit, and obtrusive measures. The limitations of current analogs for exploration EVAs identify a need for a new test environment that can approximate both the physical and cognitive demands associated with exploration EVAs to enable rapid, controlled, and repeatable evaluations of human health and performance risks of exploration missions. In response, the Human Physiology, Performance, Protection, and Operations Laboratory (H-3PO) at NASA Johnson Space Center has developed a hybrid reality exploration EVA analog named the Assessments of Physiology And Cognition in Hybrid-reality Environments (APACHE) to address these limitations using a combination of virtual, physical, and hybrid reality techniques. The APACHE facility resides at NASA Johnson Space Center and serves as a large “sandbox” for EVA research and simulation. At its center is a roughly 15x20ft space surrounded by a 14” tall sandbox partially filled with lunar regolith simulant to emulate the physical feeling of walking on a planetary surface and to allow for simulated geology operations. Nearby, a curved passive treadmill (Skillmill Connect, Technogym, Fairfield, NJ) and an omnidirectional treadmill (Infinadeck, Infinadeck, Rocklin, CA) are included to enable exploration of these large virtual environments while also imposing the physical demands, representative timelines, and cognitive burdens required to navigate and traverse these distances during exploration EVA. A 6DOF motion platform is used to simulate rover operations and supports various human performance evaluations and associated risks. Lastly, APACHE can support two extravehicular (EV) crewmembers working in tandem. A computer workstation is located nearby and also supports an intravehicular (IV) crewmember as part of a full mission simulation. The IV crewmember has direct video and audio communication with the EV crew in VR to provide operational and procedural support. The software used in APACHE was created by the JSC Engineering Directorate, in partnership with Buendea, powered by a custom Unreal Engine 5 (UE5.3, Epic Games) project. APACHE currently utilizes the HTC Vive Pro Eye in a wireless configuration for VR simulations. There are two virtual environments that subjects can explore within APACHE, a Lunar and Martian surface. The virtual Lunar surface was created from LIDAR data of the Lunar South Pole to create roughly 16 sq km of explorable terrain. The virtual Martian surface contains roughly 400 sq km of explorable terrain derived from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter LIDAR data of the Jezero Crater. The immersion and related cognitive burdens of conducting a planetary EVA is simulated through a series of EVA-relevant tasks performed in the VR environment, using these high-fidelity visual representations. Additionally, APACHE includes biosensor driven informatics, such as real-time heart rate monitoring and/or derived values from model simulations, for active monitoring by the EV crew and added cognitive demand. A “Wizard of Oz” control panel enables test operators to activate contingency events such as simulated spacesuit malfunctions, loss of communications, and/or limited visibility. Embedded performance measures such as accuracy, completeness, and execution time have been developed for various exploration tasks to objectively quantify crew performance during an EVA and compare impacts to performance when different environmental stressors, both physical and cognitive, are added to or removed from the simulation. Additionally, validated cognitive and operational performance measures such as the Digit Symbol Substitution Task have been recreated and embedded in VR for direct and relatively unobtrusive measurement of motor perception. The APACHE environment currently supports multiple research studies at NASA. Examples include the CHAPEA project, a series of simulated year-long missions on Mars by a 4-person crew; and the CO2 Contingency Walk Back Study, an investigation of elevated CO2 exposure on crew performance during a contingency EVA scenario. APACHE also provides a test environment to support the development of the Crew State and Risk Model, which is a collection of individualized, mathematical models of crew physical and cognitive state; and the Personalized EVA Informatics and Decision Support system, an operational tool for flight controllers, and eventually a self-reliant Martian crew, to make biomedically-informed decisions in real-time to optimize the EVA planning and execution with respect to crew health and performance. Some technical challenges associated with developing the APACHE environment, as well as current limitations, include VR limitless natural walking with a hybrid spacesuit simulator, optimizing performance for wireless PC VR streaming while maintaining a high degree of visual fidelity, and the integration of various physiological (metabolic masks) and psychometric (eye tracking) sensors with the VR headset.

Human Performance↗

DOE OSTI2022

Bounds on Optimal Revisit Times in Persistent Monitoring Missions With a Distinct and Remote Service Station</strong

We report persistent monitoring missions require an up-to-date knowledge of the changing state of the underlying environment. Unmannned aerial vehicles (UAVs) can be gainfully employed to continually visit a set of targets representing tasks (and locations) in the environment and collect data therein for long time periods. The enduring nature of these missions requires the UAV to be regularly recharged at a service station. In this article, we consider the case in which the service station is not colocated with any of the targets. An efficient monitoring requires the revisit time, defined as the maximum of the time elapsed between successive revisits to targets, to be minimized. Here, we consider the problem of determining UAV routes that lead to the minimum revisit time. The problem is NP-hard, and its computational difficulty increases with the fuel capacity of the UAV. We develop an algorithm to construct near-optimal solutions to the problem quickly when the fuel capacity exceeds a threshold. We also develop lower bounds to the optimal revisit time and use these bounds to demonstrate (through numerical simulations) that the constructed solutions are, on an average, at most 0.01% away from the optimum.

42 ENGINEERING↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Sensorimotor Application of Proposed Methods to Combine the Effects of Multiple Countermeasures for PRisM

Risk associated with human systems is challenging to quantify but is critical for the mission planning and decision making required to enable future Lunar and Martian missions. To address this gap, the Crew Health and Performance-Probabilistic Risk Assessment (CHP-PRA) project is developing an integrated computational model for CHP mission risk. Much like how MEDPRAT is designed to allow medical resource trades informed by medical risk, CHP-PRA will enable analogous trades in human system risks across multiple CHP functions and capabilities. Human performance is one component of the risk intended to be captured by CHP-PRA through the Performance Risk Model (PRisM). The sensorimotor risk area provides a good frame of reference for investigating the structure of a performance model because most tasks that astronauts are expected to perform require input from the sensory system and/or movement/motor control. Additionally, sensorimotor countermeasures are an area of particular concern for NASA’s Human Research Program because of the increased sensorimotor risk associated with surface operations in Lunar and Martian missions. Thus, a tool that can quickly compare risk reductions of potential countermeasures would be beneficial in guiding research and development of effective countermeasures. In this proof of concept, we present a systematic way to combine multiple performance data sets for humans subjected to different countermeasures such that we can predict the countermeasure(s) that optimize astronaut performance on relevant tasks. PRisM assumes that both the tests that are used to measure countermeasure effectiveness (input data) and the tasks we use to represent astronaut performance, can be broken down and represented as a function/vector of the human systems required to perform that test/task. Through mathematical combination, test data are used to predict performance on astronaut tasks that use similar systems. We propose that when combining countermeasures evaluated using the same test, that only one value should be used to represent their combined effectiveness. We start our analysis with the assumption that two countermeasures together will perform better than each countermeasure individually. Our initial implementation of this framework compares various space motion sickness countermeasures and the most up to date analysis will be demonstrated at the IWS.

Caroline R Austin↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

A new Exploration Extravehicular Activity Suit (xEVAS) is being designed to replace the current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Artemis program to return astronauts to the lunar surface. This new suit will allow for increased range of motion compared the current EMU and Apollo era suits and will have additional features that will enhance the health and safety of exploration. With the design of lunar missions and the xEVAS progressing, it is important to consider possible injuries and injury mechanisms that could occur in the suit. To address these concerns, the suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis (IMEA) was developed to outline suited injury scenarios and rank them based on risk score. The IMEA documents possible scenarios and underlying mechanisms of injury while wearing an extravehicular activity (EVA) suit. Tasks during lunar surface EVA as well as training events to prepare for lunar missions were considered as history has shown that more suit injuries occur during training than in flight. Each scenario is ranked with a consequence and likelihood scoring based on our current understanding of the suit and Artemis design reference missions to identify high-risk cases that will drive further work in suited injury. Injuries, mechanisms of injury, and mitigation strategies are evaluated within each scenario. The Suited Injury Summit was held on January 5, 2022, to vet the IMEA with external experts. This was an all-day virtual meeting with the suited injury team, ergonomists, suit engineers, safety engineers, the flight operations directorate, flight doctors, astronauts, astronaut strength, conditioning, and rehabilitation specialists (ASCRS), and external subject matter experts (SMEs). External SMEs consisted of surgeons with varying specialties. The intent of this meeting was to walk through the top injury risks identified in the analysis, identify any gaps that were not captured, and discuss mitigations. With participation from all groups, countless lessons-learned came from the Summit meeting. Using the lessons-learned and discussion from the Summit, the top 10 risks have been identified: neutral buoyancy laboratory training, hand/glove injuries, poor suit fit, field training, specific EVA tasks/design of task, boots/ankle injuries, falls from heights, background radiation, repetitive contact, and ambulation/long-distance ambulation. Mitigation steps have also been determined for each of the top risks. The IMEA and documentation of top risks is a living document. Yearly meetings are planned to update the analysis and reevaluate top risks and mitigations. The IMEA is being used to drive work in suited injury, and this work will continue to evolve with IMEA and lunar mission updates.

Teresa Reiber↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Development of the Suited Injury Modes and Effects Analysis for Identification of Top Injury Risks in Lunar Missions and Training

Tessa Reiber↗

NASA NTRS1997

Dynamics Questions Associated with the AERCam Sprint Free-Flyer

The International Space Station will require the development of small robotic vehicles for such tasks as external inspection, monitoring of extravehicular activities (EVA's) and station build-up, and providing additional lighting at EVA worksites. The Autonomous EVA Robotic Camera (AERCam) family of free-flyers is currently being developed at NASA Johnson Space Center to perform these functions; the first member of the family is the AERCam Sprint vehicle. Many interesting dynamical questions are associated with the Sprint free-flyer. For instance, the reaction of a vehicle which is nearly spherically symmetric (such as Sprint) to a stuck-on thruster is significantly more complicated than that obtained for an idealized, perfectly spherical, spacecraft model. In particular, the real spacecraft will experience a form of forced nutation, with convergence towards either its major or minor principal axis, depending on both the applied torque and the mass properties of the vehicle. Furthermore, the body-fixed jet force vector may have a significant component along this principal axis, so giving rise to a considerable net linear acceleration of the spacecraft. The large velocity that can result is very important, as it may lead to collision with the nearby Orbiter, and is completely overlooked in the idealized analysis. This report will firstly briefly describe the stuck-on thruster dynamics of the real vehicle, and outline how the small products of inertia of the spacecraft determine the time constants of the motion. Secondly, the dynamical effects of a failed-off jet on the Sprint free-flyer will be described in more detail, and compared with the stuck-on thruster case. This will help to show whether the two malfunctions should be dealt with differently in flight. Finally, the stuck-on thruster detection software (known as the uncommanded motion algorithm) that is proposed to be flown on the Sprint vehicle will be analyzed, and all possible perturbation sources that may tend to give rise to false stuck-on thruster alarms quantified. It will be shown that false alarms can be triggered by discrete events such as a failed-off thruster, a glancing collision with Orbiter structure, or thruster saturation. They can also be triggered by a combination of errors introduced by constantly present sources such as thrust level errors, thruster misalignment, inertial cross-coupling, angular rate sensor noise, and structural vibrations induced by thruster firings. Based on this fact, the original plan to have the spacecraft enter safe mode whenever the uncommanded motion algorithm is triggered does not appear to be advisable. A better approach seems to be to provide the Sprint pilot with a warning whenever uncommanded motion is detected, and then allow the crew to determine whether safing the vehicle is appropriate.

Williams, Trevor↗

NASA NTRS2006

Comanche Helmet-Mounted Display Symbology Simulation

The Aeroflightdynamics Directorate (AMRDEC) conducted a simulation to examine the performance of the Comanche Contact Analog world-referenced symbology displayed on the Comanche HIDSS when compared with a compressed symbology design similar to that specified by the former MIL-STD 1295. Six experimental test pilots flew one modified ADS-33 maneuver (hover turn, bob-up), an unusual attitude recovery, and two terrain flight tactical tasks in the NASA Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS). Analysis of the pilot objective performance data and subjective data showed the following results. Objective test results showed that 1295 symbology yielded more rapid maneuvering in the hover turn bob-up than Contact Analog symbology. The average margin of difference in the time to complete the maneuver was approximately two seconds, which was statistically significant. There were no significant differences measured between symbology sets with respect to altitude or position performance measures for all other maneuvers. The NOE target ID task data showed improved accuracy in determining heading to target when using Contact Analog over MIL-STD-1295. Subjective test results, including handling qualities ratings (HQRs) and NASA-TLX workload ratings, showed small but consistent advantages of 1295 symbology over Contact Analog for most parameters. For the bob-up maneuver, 1295 symbology handling qualities were rated Desired for lateral position error and time to complete whereas Contact Analog was rated adequate. The average HQRs for all other maneuvers were rated the same for both symbology sets. Pilot comments and the results of an online questionnaire more strongly favored 1295 over Contact Analog. Repeated comments from all six pilots led to a focus on design issues with six Contact Analog symbols. Those symbols were the heading tape, horizon line, radar altitude six-second predictor, the position of the torque symbol, the absence of a hover position cue, and the widespread positioning of the symbology to the outer edges of the display field-of-view. Pilots rated the present design of three of the six symbols as having safety-of-flight implications. Those symbols were the heading tape, horizon line, and six-second predictor. To summarize, test results showed no objective data that would warrant restricting experimental test pilots from flying constrained tasks. Small but consistent advantages were recorded for the MILSTD-1295 symbology design when executing ADS-33 constrained tasks. No general performance differences were recorded for the operational maneuvers (NOE, contour flight modes) except for the azimuth-to-target task, which favored the Contact Analog heading tape design. There were consistent and strong pilot comments supporting the MIL-STD-1295 design over Contact Analog in both this current simulation and in Comanche Sim I. Three Contact Analog symbols warrant modification and further evaluation to mitigate safety-of-flight implications noted by participating test pilots. A plan for symbology redesign and testing was developed. However, the Comanche program was cancelled by Department of Army in February 2004.

Turpin, Terry S.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Preliminary Sensorimotor and Cardiovascular Results from the Joint Russian and U.S. Pilot Field Test with Planning for the Full Field Test Beginning with the Year Long Intenational Space Station

Ongoing collaborative research efforts between NASA's Neuroscience and Cardiovascular Laboratories, and the Institute of Biomedical Problems' (IBMP) Sensory-Motor and Countermeasures Laboratories have been measuring functional sensorimotor, cardiovascular and strength responses following bed rest, dry immersion, short duration (Space Shuttle) and long duration (Mir and International Space Station) space flights. While the unloading paradigms associated with dry immersion and bed rest does serve as acceptable flight analogs, testing of crew responses following the long duration flights previously has not been possible until a minimum of 24 hours after landing. As a result, it is not possible to estimate the nonlinear trend of the early (<24 hr) recovery process, nor is it possible to accurately assess the full impact of the decrements associated with long duration flight. To overcome these limitations, both the Russian and U.S. sides have implemented testing at landing site. By joint agreement, this research effort has been identified as the functional Field Test (FT). For practical reasons the FT has been divided into two phases: the full FT and a preliminary pilot version (PFT) of the FT that is reduced in both length and scope. The primary goal of this research is to determine functional abilities in long duration space flight crews beginning as soon after landing as possible (< 2 hr) with one to three immediate follow-up measurements on the day of landing. This goal has both sensorimotor and cardiovascular elements, including evaluations of NASA's new anti-orthostatic compression garment and the Russian Kentavr garment. Functional sensorimotor measurements will include, but are not limited to, assessment of hand/eye coordination, ability to egress from a seated position, walk normally without falling, measurement of dynamic visual acuity, ability to discriminate different forces generated with both the hands and legs, recovery from a fall, a coordinated walk involving tandem heel-to-toe placement, and determination of postural ataxia while standing. The cardiovascular portion of the investigation includes blood pressure and heart rate measurements during a timed stand test in conjunction with postural ataxia testing (quiet stance sway) as well as cardiovascular responses during other functional tasks. In addition to the immediate post-landing collection of data for the full FT, postflight data will be acquired at a minimum of one to three more other times within the 24 hr following landing and continue until functional sensorimotor and cardiovascular responses have returned to preflight normative values. The PFT represents a single trial run comprised of jointly agreed upon subset of tests from the full FT and relies heavily on IBMP's Sensory-Motor and Countermeasures Laboratories for content and implementation. The PFT was first conducted following the September 2013 landing of the Soyuz spacecraft (34S) and again following the landing of Soyuz 35S in November. Testing included: (1) a sit-tostand test, (2) recovery from a fall where the crewmember began in the prone position on the ground and then stood for 3 min while cardiovascular stability was determined and postural ataxia data were acquired, and (3) a tandem heel-to-toe walk test to determine changes in the central locomotor program. Video, cardiovascular parameters (heart rate and blood pressure), data from body-worn inertial sensors and severity of postflight motion sickness were collected for analysis. In summary, the level of functional deficit is expected to be most profound during the acquisition of gravity loads immediately after landing when the demands for crew intervention in response to emergency operations will be greatest. Clearly measureable performance parameters such as ability to perform a seat egress, recover from a fall or the ability to see clearly when walking, and related physiological data (orthostatic responses) are required to provide an evidence base for characterizing programmatic risks and the degree of variability among crewmembers for exploration missions where the crew will be unassisted after landing. Overall, these early functional and related physiological measurements will allow estimation of nonlinear sensorimotor and cardiovascular recovery trends to an accuracy that has not been previously captured in over 50 years of space flight.

Reschke, M. F.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Robonaut 2 - IVA Experiments On-Board ISS and Development Towards EVA Capability

Robonaut 2 (R2) has completed its fixed base activities on-board the ISS and is scheduled to receive its climbing legs in early 2014. In its continuing line of firsts, the R2 torso finished up its on-orbit activities on its stanchion with the manipulation of space blanket materials and performed multiple tasks under teleoperation control by IVA astronauts. The successful completion of these two IVA experiments is a key step in Robonaut's progression towards an EVA capability. Integration with the legs and climbing inside the ISS will provide another important part of the experience that R2 will need prior to performing tasks on the outside of ISS. In support of these on-orbit activities, R2 has been traversing across handrails in simulated zero-g environments and working with EVA tools and equipment on the ground to determine manipulation strategies for an EVA Robonaut. R2 made significant advances in robotic manipulation of deformable materials in space while working with its softgoods task panel. This panel features quarter turn latches that secure a space blanket to the task panel structure. The space blanket covers two cloth cubes that are attached with Velcro to the structure. R2 was able to open and close the latches, pull back the blanket, and remove the cube underneath. R2 simulated cleaning up an EVA worksite as well, by replacing the cube and reattaching the blanket. In order to interact with the softgoods panel, R2 has both autonomously and with a human in the loop identified and localized these deformable objects. Using stereo color cameras, R2 identified characteristic elements on the softgoods panel then extracted the location and orientation of the object in its field of view using stereo disparity and kinematic transforms. R2 used both vision processing and supervisory control to successfully accomplish this important task. Teleoperation is a key capability for Robonaut's effectiveness as an EVA system. To build proficiency, crewmembers have attempted increasingly difficult tasks using R2 inside the Station. After donning motion capture equipment and a virtual reality visor, Expedition 34/35 flight engineer Tom Marshburn began operations with simple hand movements. Having gained confidence, Marshburn guided R2's arms in a leader-follower exercise with crewmate Chris Cassidy. He was also able to use the hand to grab a tumbling roll of tape, a task only demonstrable in microgravity. Later efforts saw Cassidy handle softgoods through shared control with ground operators, mimicking an activity previously achieved using only autonomy. Robotic climbing through the ISS on handrails requires both precision motion and compliant grasps in order to both position grippers on handrails/seat track and prevent large internal forces. R2 climbs using actively controlled compliance and torque limiting to meet both the precision and softness requirements. During a step, the attached leg is controlled to be strong and stiff in order to maintain precision trajectory tracking. The swing leg is controlled to be stiff but weak to minimize unintentional impact forces while maintaining precision. During a simulated dual limb grasp (as shown in Figure 1), the R2 controller maintains one limb rigid and one limb soft to prevent large internal forces from building up. R2's grippers also use a form of force control to limit grip force while not fully closed on either a handrail or seat track thus limiting unintentional forces on cables/objects that may be present in R2's translational path. The on-board torso R2 safety system relies on a single end-effector velocity limit to prevent potential impact forces from exceeding Station maximum load requirements. R2's mobile configuration required modifications to the velocity limiting safety function due to its large, dynamic inertia. R2's legs maneuver the robot's mass creating configuration dependent, joint-relative inertias. A single all-encompassing velocity limit to cover worst case inertia is prohibitively low. The upgraded R2 control and safety systems solve this problem using momentum limiting, momentum control, and kinetic energy minimization. Momentum and kinetic energy take the robot mass into account relieving low velocity restrictions on low inertia end-effectors while ensuring that the overall mass of R2 is limited from hazardous velocities. The momentum of R2's five safety nodes (each of the four end-effectors and the body) is monitored and compared to a single momentum limit. If any of the five nodes exceeds the safety limit, the motor power is removed and the robot comes to a stop. Momentum control/limiting also provides a simple, reliable method to integrate hand held tools into the safety system by providing the tool mass to the control system thus automatically reducing the allowable velocity of the end-effector with the tool. Work on the ground continues to build the skill set for an EVA Robonaut. Recent experiments (Figure 2) demonstrate how a teleoperator can use R2 to manipulate a tether hook, an important safety precaution on spacewalks. Another task displayed Robonaut's ability to pull back a protective jacket over a hose and search for damage, as well as inspect a quick-disconnect fitting for debris. Demonstrations such as these are indicative of EVA work done on ISS, specifically seen during a series of spacewalks over 2012 and 2013 where astronauts searched for an ammonia leak in one of the external cooling loops. Through experiments both on ISS and on the ground, R2 is evolving and providing the information needed to plan out the upgrades that will make an EVA Robonaut an effective tool. With the addition of legs, R2 will start climbing inside the space station and supply invaluable information on how the climbing strategies and task stabilization techniques must be refined. Ground R2 systems will continue to work with additional EVA tools and equipment in preparation for onboard IVA testing and future EVA applications.

Diftler, Myron↗